insider_signal

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility. It explains clustering based on direction and threshold (default 3), but omits details about data source limitations, rate limits, or authentication needs. Some behavioral context is provided, but not comprehensive.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Three sentences, front-loaded with main purpose and key outputs. No fluff, every sentence contributes essential information.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

No output schema exists, so the description must clarify return format. It mentions net change, buyer count, cluster presence, and signal, but lacks specifics on structure or data types. Adequate but not fully complete.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100% with Korean descriptions. The description adds meaning by explaining the aggregation logic and signal interpretation, going beyond individual parameter descriptions. However, all content is in Korean, which may limit universal clarity.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool aggregates insider transactions into buy/sell clusters, calculates net change, buyer counts, and quarterly clusters, providing a Buffett-style signal. This distinctively separates it from siblings like buffett_quality_snapshot or disclosure_anomaly.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While the purpose is clear, the description does not specify scenarios or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage context.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.